Talk:Squaw Peak Inn

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as High-importance).

Off-topic material

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As per my edit summary, I've removed off topic stuff from lede. This article is about the Inn, and not offensive terminology. The two refs which remain are books which I can't access. Now if those refs discuss "Squaw Peak Inn" or "Squaw Peak", then fine. But if they don't then including them is improper WP:SYN. – S. Rich (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

remove bloat

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

No one owns this article. There is a suggestion wp:BRD, but there is a not a rule that all removals of material need to be approved of by any one editor. I see this edit by MB as reasonable, removing bloat / padding unsuitable for an article about a historic place. Okay, it has been discussed; I will pause briefly then expect to reimplement MB's edits. --Doncram (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, there is no policy against boldly performing good-faith cleanup of an article. In fact, a fundamental principle states just the opposite. This is especially applicable when the changes are expected to be non-controversial.

The cleanup involved removing content not relevant to the understanding of the article subject. This included the section on the renaming of a nearby mountain. The photo of the current owners is just un-encyclopedic puffery/vanity for them. "See also" links already in the article are contrary to WP:SEEALSO. The excessive images are contrary to WP:GALLERY, even the captions are too wordy per WP:CAPTION.

To say "Fine as it was" really is an insufficient discussion of your reason for reverting my cleanup. I thank Doncram for starting a discussion as you should have. Unless the WP:CONSENSUS changes with further discussion, my edits certainly should be restored. MB 00:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:MB, go for it, you have my blessings! In regard to what was said in the beginning that "No one owns this article" I think that I have been here long enough to know that. So, let's stop criticizing me since what I said and did was based on "Good Faith". Take care and do your thing. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic